Jump to content
Science Forums

Intelligent design / creationism


Stargazer

Recommended Posts

DNA. DNA has been best described as computer code. In fact, that's exactly what it is. It is information that directs, organizes, and gives commands. If we saw a paper full of computer code laying around, we would naturally infer that someone wrote it. Why can't we do the same thing with the ridiculously wonderful and complex code that is in every living thing? ***Note: By saying complex, I am not insinuating disorder.

JP

While we have mapped many DNA sequences of many organisms, one thing that we repeatedly find (And even more so in more complex organisms) is the huge amount of "junk DNA" in the genomes. This is archaic DNA that no-longer is used (although we are finding bits and pieces in the rubbish). It is believed that 97% of the human ganome is junk. With apox. 3×10^9 sequence pairs, that leaves about 2.91x10^9 pairs as random trial and error moments. The intriguing aspect is the ability of an organism to access only the active genome (usually through coded start sequences).

So, comparing the genome to a computer program is like having millions of pages of code with only 3% of it actually used, and randomly selected from the pile. DNA is much more chaotic than computer code.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, ok. Let me throw out one argument that I see for intelligent design.

By the way, exactly what is included in intelligent design? The creation of the universe, or just our solar system, or just life on this particular planet?

 

DNA. DNA has been best described as computer code. In fact, that's exactly what it is. It is information that directs, organizes, and gives commands. If we saw a paper full of computer code laying around, we would naturally infer that someone wrote it. Why can't we do the same thing with the ridiculously wonderful and complex code that is in every living thing? ***Note: By saying complex, I am not insinuating disorder.

That's because we know from experience that it's not natural, and that some programmer wrote all that code. The same doesn't go for DNA. How do you know someone created it? Who is this creator? What is this theory supposed to explain, and what does it predict? Are snowflakes designed too? Crystals? Or is it the chemical properties of the elements that are designed, allowing certain reactions to occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've hit the nail on the head, pg. We are forced to that very question. Eventually it is inescapable.

 

So, I suppose the question is, which is more likely - that god created DNA or that through a strange coincedence, DNA happened to form. I understand that DNA is much more complex in us than it is in bacteria, and I would imagine that it was even less complex when it started, so I have no problem with the second. If it had happened that a human was the first lifeform, then I would've had to agree with the first being simpler.

 

Let me explain why I believe your first proposal (that God created DNA) is correct.

 

1. Because of what I've already spoken of in terms of inference about biological "code" implanted in every living thing.

 

2. It very reasonable to show that it is next to impossible to have DNA form by chance.

And even if DNA was formed by chance, that still doesn't make an organism living... You can put all of the necessary parts for a living organism inside of a tube and shake it around, but you can't make "life" out of it. It just doesn't happen that way. I feel that to think that DNA formed by chance, and then somehow became a living organism is to deny reality. (for more info on the complexity of linking even amino-acids, let me know)

 

That basically sums up my first argument. I'm sure that there will be more postings about this particular posting.

 

I look forward to hearing your arguments and ideas. Thank-you for letting me share mine.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your questions Stargazer. Here are some answers. Please let me know if I can clarify or if I have misunderstood any of your questions.

 

By the way, exactly what is included in intelligent design? The creation of the universe, or just our solar system, or just life on this particular planet?

 

For the sake of this single DNA argument, let's leave ID at all living things. The others would probably be better in a different discussion forum.

 

 

That's because we know from experience that it's not natural, and that some programmer wrote all that code. The same doesn't go for DNA. How do you know someone created it?

 

Great question. If you look at my previous posts, I explain my reasoning. We use evidence based on inference. My other posts go into more detail.

 

Who is this creator?

 

That, Stargazer, is the REAL question. But that might also be better for a theological forum.

 

What is this theory supposed to explain, and what does it predict?

 

I'm not clear on which theory you're asking about... ID or my argument for ID?

 

Are snowflakes designed too?

 

We know how snowflakes are made. We know that God doesn't sit up there and knit every little snowflake. But, if we were to consider ID, then it is possible that the Designer created the properties of water, so that H20 molecules would react certain ways, and that under certain conditions snowflakes would be possible.

 

Crystals? Or is it the chemical properties of the elements that are designed, allowing certain reactions to occur?

 

Awesome question. I believe that my above reply answers this question. If ID is considered, then it is very plausible to infer that he designed the chemical properties of elements rather than designing every little detail of every snowflake and crystal.

 

Thanks again for any replys, arguments, or add-ons.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tormod, thank-you for the reply. I don't feel, however, that your post has much to do for or against my argument. I think it is a separate issue. I don't believe origins is a relevant topic to this argument.

 

I already read one of the articles, and I'll try to get to the other one soon. They are extremely interesting. Thanks for the links.

 

DNA has a history which is much more complex than coffee drip machines (if you exclude the fact that coffee drip machines are the result of billions of years of evolution...). Infer all you like, it will not help you much in this case. You're arguing against 3,7 billion years of evolving life on this planet.

 

DNA evolves. It replicates and mutates. But DNA is neither the first step in the ladder of life, nor the last. It is, however, one of the key pieces in the puzzle of life.

 

The entire human genome has been mapped. We know there is a lot of junk DNA (ie, stretches in the genome which apparently serve no function). However, research seems to show that even the junk DNA tends to serve a purpose in given situtations. In other words, DNA is incredibly complex.

 

Yet it is possible to take simpler organisms where the genome is much smaller, and make changes to it. Take banana flies. Make a change here or there and its offspring has three eyes or only one wing.

 

But before we start arguing whether DNA can be compared to written code, let's take a look at the origin of life.

 

Here are some interesting reads:

 

Eukaryotic Origins

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article243.html

 

Were Bacteria the First Forms of Life on Earth?

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html

 

 

Again, I don't think the origin of life is pertinent to my current argument. Thanks for the links again.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there. Awesome information. It's stunning the complexity of DNA. Here are my comments.

 

While we have mapped many DNA sequences of many organisms, one thing that we repeatedly find (And even more so in more complex organisms) is the huge amount of "junk DNA" in the genomes. This is archaic DNA that no-longer is used (although we are finding bits and pieces in the rubbish). It is believed that 97% of the human ganome is junk. With apox. 3×10^9 sequence pairs, that leaves about 2.91x10^9 pairs as random trial and error moments. The intriguing aspect is the ability of an organism to access only the active genome (usually through coded start sequences).

So, comparing the genome to a computer program is like having millions of pages of code with only 3% of it actually used, and randomly selected from the pile. DNA is much more chaotic than computer code.

.

 

I think that what may look to us as choas, might just be beyond our level of comprehension at this time. Computer code would look completely chaotic to a 3rd Grader because it so beyond what he or she can comprehend at that time.

 

DNA is undeniably complex, but it also works for the organism a very large percentage of the time. That cannot be denied. Even though it may LOOK chaotic, the RESULTS are very much orderly. That leads me to believe that it is not chaotic, merely more complex than we are able to deal with at this moment.

 

Awesome observation and information, though. Let me know if you have any arguments from what I just said.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's already a pot of coffee brewing at the office when you arrive. Inference would give you about 2 realistic options: a) Someone arrived before and started the coffee :hihi: The coffee pot has an automatic timer to start brewing in the morning

 

But it could definitely be used as evidence to show that someone was there, if that evidence was needed.

I have given this attempt at proof some thought.

 

It contains a rather obvious fallacy.

 

The coffee drip machine requires an intelligent act in order to produce coffee. That act can only come from an outside agent, ie a human being (no matter how long the command chain is, the order for coffee will have come from a human being). This is testable and thus easy to prove.

 

However, we have several theories as to how DNA appeared. We do not know if it was by will, by chance, or by any other agent. Thus it cannot be inferred that it was the result of a conscious act. You cannot bring me any evidence, even if I ask for it. All you can provide is the ID answer, which is not a scientific answer but a religious Truth.

 

The coffee drip machine is an amazingly poor attempt at implying there is evidence when there is none. I would advise you to read our FAQ, especially the bit called "A word on behaviour in a science forum". See the FAQ link, above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DNA is undeniably complex, but it also works for the organism a very large percentage of the time. That cannot be denied. Even though it may LOOK chaotic, the RESULTS are very much orderly. That leads me to believe that it is not chaotic, merely more complex than we are able to deal with at this moment.

Which is true for the entire universe, no?

 

And at what moment will the complexity of DNA become apparent to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of this single DNA argument, let's leave ID at all living things. The others would probably be better in a different discussion forum.

So the Intelligent Design "theory" deal only with DNA and nothing else, at all. It does not deal with the rest of the universe, including its "birth." Ok, good to finally have a definition.

 

Let me explain why I believe your first proposal (that God created DNA) is correct.

 

1. Because of what I've already spoken of in terms of inference about biological "code" implanted in every living thing.

It's a molecule. There are plenty of molecules. Where do you draw the line, when do you say "this molecule formed because of the properties of each element involved" and when do you say "this molecule was no the result of chemistry, but some creator?"

 

2. It very reasonable to show that it is next to impossible to have DNA form by chance.

Whoever said it did?

 

And even if DNA was formed by chance, that still doesn't make an organism living... You can put all of the necessary parts for a living organism inside of a tube and shake it around, but you can't make "life" out of it. It just doesn't happen that way. I feel that to think that DNA formed by chance, and then somehow became a living organism is to deny reality. (for more info on the complexity of linking even amino-acids, let me know)

Deny reality indeed. I suppose this is why noone really says this is what happened.

 

That, Stargazer, is the REAL question. But that might also be better for a theological forum.

Not at all. We're discussing a certain theory called Intelligent Design, right? I want more explanations of this supposedly "scientific theory" and now you say I can't get more details?

 

I'm not clear on which theory you're asking about... ID or my argument for ID?

I'm asking about the theory... not the argument.

 

We know how snowflakes are made. We know that God doesn't sit up there and knit every little snowflake.

Yes, she does! The fact that we don't have any observations to support this ridiculous idea is something I think we should ignore. Also, let's ignore the fact that my explanations for the formation of snowflakes is completely superfluous and violates Ockham's razor. Same goes, of course, for all other structures and molecules in this universe.

 

But, if we were to consider ID, then it is possible that the Designer created the properties of water, so that H20 molecules would react certain ways, and that under certain conditions snowflakes would be possible.

Possible, indeed. Who created the creator? Surely she didn't appear by chance...? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me explain why I believe your first proposal (that God created DNA) is correct.

 

1. Because of what I've already spoken of in terms of inference about biological "code" implanted in every living thing.

 

2. It very reasonable to show that it is next to impossible to have DNA form by chance.

And even if DNA was formed by chance, that still doesn't make an organism living... You can put all of the necessary parts for a living organism inside of a tube and shake it around, but you can't make "life" out of it. It just doesn't happen that way. I feel that to think that DNA formed by chance, and then somehow became a living organism is to deny reality. (for more info on the complexity of linking even amino-acids, let me know)

 

That basically sums up my first argument. I'm sure that there will be more postings about this particular posting.

 

JP

 

Did I miss the arguement or is that it ? :rant: Let me get grounded... Hmmhmm. I will let

Tormod handle item 1 as he appears to deal quite aptly with your inferencing thing later

here.

 

Am I to understand the body of your arguement that "God must have created DNA because

it is too complicated for him not to" ??? There are 4 base pairs that make up the sequence

{A, T, G, P} (I forgot most of the amino acid names -- excuse me). I am beginning to

think you don't know enough about logic. A mathematical proof can be a proof by

contradiction (my favorite). To do so one must assume something we know is false as

true and then prove something that is tautaulogical invalid (can't be) and thus you have

disproved it.

 

So what are you to assume (you know is false) to be true ? Personally, I don't see this as

an arguement... :hihi:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am beginning to think you don't know enough about logic. A mathematical proof can be a proof by contradiction (my favorite). To do so one must assume something we know is false as

true and then prove something that is tautaulogical invalid (can't be) and thus you have disproved it.

 

So what are you to assume (you know is false) to be true ? Personally, I don't see this as

an arguement... :hihi:

Which is my sentiment exactly.

 

But I am more worried about this:

 

I don't feel, however, that your post has much to do for or against my argument. I think it is a separate issue. I don't believe origins is a relevant topic to this argument.

How can origins NOT be relevant to this topic? I frankly don't think that is up to you to decide, jp. I would suggest reading through this entire topic from the beginning. It started with Stargazer questioning the ID argument for the creation of the universe because it contained fallacies. Your use of the DNA example plays right into his hand, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stargazer, I love reading your replies! They are well thought-out and cohesive, but I do have a few things to point out.

 

So the Intelligent Design "theory" deal only with DNA and nothing else, at all. It does not deal with the rest of the universe, including its "birth." Ok, good to finally have a definition.

 

Not at all, I'm merely saying for the sake of this DNA discussion that we will limit ID to all living things at this time. It's definitely not a definition by any means.

 

 

Not at all. We're discussing a certain theory called Intelligent Design, right? I want more explanations of this supposedly "scientific theory" and now you say I can't get more details?

Whoa, whoa, whoa... I'm not saying you can't get more details, but you're probing into defining the Designer, when my posts have been aimed at evidential arguments FOR a designer. The question "Who is the designer?" can definitely be addressed, but that's opening up a whole new drawer of socks.

 

 

I'm asking about the theory... not the argument.

A good worldview will cohesively enfold origins, present human condition, and what happens after we die. I believe this theory is a segway to a cohesive and reasonable worldview that explains all three. Again, might be good in another forum.

 

 

Yes, she does! The fact that we don't have any observations to support this ridiculous idea is something I think we should ignore. Also, let's ignore the fact that my explanations for the formation of snowflakes is completely superfluous and violates Ockham's razor. Same goes, of course, for all other structures and molecules in this universe.
Not sure why you wrote that

 

 

Possible, indeed. Who created the creator? Surely she didn't appear by chance...? :-)
By definition, a non-eternal universe needs a preclusive entity which is eternal. Therefore, the preclusive entity does not have a creator.

 

 

 

Thanks again for your comments. If you have more, be sure to let me know.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there maddog,

 

thanks for your comments. Someone has finally broached logic with this argument. I appreciate your insights. Here are my comments.

 

Am I to understand the body of your arguement that "God must have created DNA because it is too complicated for him not to" ???

Not at all. You're misunderstanding my reasoning and taking the reasoning out of order. Re-read my post with the points and you will see. Let me explain again, though.

 

Through inference, we can see that coherent, purposeful information needs a Designer or Programmer. (Point 1)

 

We also know that DNA cannot form on its own. Even if it could, it could not create life on its own. (Point 2)

 

Even prior to Point 2, the argument was still pointing towards ID. This is not a "nothing else works so blame it on God" argument. Re-read it, because I feel you may have misunderstood it. I do appreciate you letting me clarify, however.

 

 

There are 4 base pairs that make up the sequence

{A, T, G, P} (I forgot most of the amino acid names -- excuse me).

Right on.

 

 

I am beginning to think you don't know enough about logic.

Probably true, but irrelevant.

 

A mathematical proof can be a proof by contradiction (my favorite). To do so one must assume something we know is false as true and then prove something that is tautaulogical invalid (can't be) and thus you have disproved it.
Algebra all over again. :rant:

 

So what are you to assume (you know is false) to be true ? Personally, I don't see this as

an arguement... :hihi:

That would be true, but I think you misunderstood my argument.

 

I do appreciate your reply, though. Thanks for the great discussion.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tormod. Long time, no talk. :rant: I appreciate the reply. Here we go.

 

How can origins NOT be relevant to this topic?

I must concede that you are indeed correct. Upon further examination, I realized that I have made an error. Origins are very relevant to this topic. However, I do feel that to ask me to look at origins is to dodge my point. I know that you've posted some more replies, and I intend to get to them. Thanks again.

 

 

I frankly don't think that is up to you to decide, jp. I would suggest reading through this entire topic from the beginning. It started with Stargazer questioning the ID argument for the creation of the universe because it contained fallacies. Your use of the DNA example plays right into his hand, really.

I don't think so. It's a persuasive argument FOR ID. I have not yet seen a post that has had sufficient evidence to shatter it. There might be one out there, but I haven't seen it yet.

 

Thanks for your replies and arguments. They are getting tougher. I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am. :hihi:

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have given this attempt at proof some thought.

 

It contains a rather obvious fallacy.

 

The coffee drip machine requires an intelligent act in order to produce coffee. That act can only come from an outside agent, ie a human being (no matter how long the command chain is, the order for coffee will have come from a human being). This is testable and thus easy to prove.

You missed the entire point, my friend. My argument was one of inference as evidence, not of testing proof. Your very first line about how the machine requires an intelligent act is exactly my point. You used inference in that very sentence.

 

However, we have several theories as to how DNA appeared. We do not know if it was by will, by chance, or by any other agent. Thus it cannot be inferred that it was the result of a conscious act.
It very much can. If you read literature about non-equilibrium thermodynamics, you will see that "by chance" is not really a valid possibility. If you stretch quite a bit, it could be. But that isn't really science, is it? What are we left with? In your words, "by will" or "by any other agent". The last one is too vague. That leaves us with "by will".

 

You cannot bring me any evidence, even if I ask for it. All you can provide is the ID answer, which is not a scientific answer but a religious Truth.
I'm afraid that this is a stereotypical view of ID. You claim that this isn't a scientific answer to origins, but you can't even pretend to give me a different scientific answer with documented backings. That's a bit hypocritical.

 

The coffee drip machine is an amazingly poor attempt at implying there is evidence when there is none. I would advise you to read our FAQ, especially the bit called "A word on behaviour in a science forum". See the FAQ link, above.

A bit harsh, but your choice. You still haven't debunked my argument. The coffee machine was merely a tool to get you to understand inference. It wasn't a poor tool at all. I do appreciate the time that you put into your thoughts, though.

 

Thanks again for a great discussion.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All scientific theories need some shread of evidence. So far, the evolutionists, especially Tormod, have provided evidence, maybe not proof in your eyes, but evidence nonetheless. You have obviously thought about this a great deal, but you have no evidence beyond logic, which you admit you may not know enough of. Until you can provide evidence in favor of your idea, it is useless to debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey pg! Late nights in the forums... :hihi: I do need to say a quick reply to your post.

 

All scientific theories need some shread of evidence. So far, the evolutionists, especially Tormod, have provided evidence, maybe not proof in your eyes, but evidence nonetheless. You have obviously thought about this a great deal, but you have no evidence beyond logic, which you admit you may not know enough of. Until you can provide evidence in favor of your idea, it is useless to debate.

 

If you go back to my earlier DNA posts, you will see that I explained how inference IS evidence. We use inferred evidence all the time in court-room trials, and in our everyday thinking and speaking. So to say that I have not given evidence is to not really understand what I was attempting to convey.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that Tormod has provided evidence along with the other evolutionists. Since I've written my first DNA post, he's merely tried to debunk my argument, and has been unsuccessful. I really enjoy discussing this with him, but I'm afraid your assertion that he has provided evidence contrary to mine is false.

 

BTW, in the next day or so I will toss in my next argument for ID. Then we can start discussing argument #2 as well. I have a decent amount more.

 

Again, I much appreciate your posts. They are thoughtful and force me to stay on my mental toes. Thanks pg!

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...